As far as I know, Road & Track hasn't been adjusting their recorded acceleration times for weather conditions, I assume because they've been testing in conditions that don't tend to vary much over the seasons - in coastal southern California.

Seems to me they've moved (or are moving), so we'll see what they do in the future.

My reason for posting C&D's European test data was to show that R&T numbers that may be seen as "suspect"/questionable are not a one off as far as the M3 numbers are concerned; even relative the C63 AMG. However, it is always possible that C&D's data could be suspected the same as R&T's European test data, but if C&D gets a pass, with very close numbers from a second source, the case against R&T's numbers is pretty thin.

"Think" vs "know": Assuming anything about the testing equipment opens a can of worms, but regardless, in '07, three cars were tested at the same place, same day, etc..,

And once agan, I'm surprised by the relative weights of the cars. The M3 is lighter than a lot of us make it out to be. The C63 is a real porker, but has tremendous power. And the RS4 is lighter than I would have thought, especially compared to the C63.

Conclusion appears to be if one gets a good launch, the MT maybe slightly slower/roughly the same as the DCT up to about 100-110mph. DCT likely to result in more consistency on track/dragstrip and can shift more quickly than any human, but doesn't mean that the MT under good launch conditions an get pretty close. There is a small weight penalty w/ the DCT (which is why some of these initial M3 test showed lower curb weights) that is more than made up for the quicker shifts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

"Think" vs "know": Assuming anything about the testing equipment opens a can of worms, but regardless, in '07, three cars were tested at the same place, same day, etc..,